Supreme Court Case: US V. Causby

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court

The purpose of this research paper is to show how unmanned aerial vehicles, better known as UAV’s or drones infringe on the Fourth Amendment and Due Process of the law.

The Kelo ET. AL. v. City of New London ET. AL., 545 U.S. 469 (2005) challenged every citizen’s idea of how far the government could go in determining what is considered the public good with regard to taking private property (Land) and giving it to a developer, using the “Taking Clause” of the fifth amendment of the US Constitution. In 1997, Susette Kelo bought a house in New London Connecticut overlooking the Thames river and view of the Atlantic Ocean coast line. But in 1998, the Phizer Corporation decided that they were going to build a research facility, which Ms. Kelo’s property was part, in New London. Phizer briefed and received city council approval on their plans for the facility and the land required, then they came together to take

The taking of land refers “to government seizure, regulation, or intrusion on private property for which the owner is entitled to compensations under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). There is also regulatory takings, which is the “newly enforceable restrictions on the use of ones property, such as a newly adopted restrictions on building in certain areas of wetlands.” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). All over the world governments take private land from its owners to benefit the public. In the United States it is called emanated domain, and has been a controversial issue till this day. By evaluating the case of Lucas V South Carolina Coastal Council of 1992 and evaluating the two types of regulatory action that automatically trigger compensation as takings; the dissent object to the takings approach laid out by the majority in this case; cities ability to take private property and transfer it to private developers for the sake of economic revitalization; the ethical issues surrounding the principle of using eminent domain to take away the property ownership rights of individuals; and the feeling I would have if the government was to take my land.

Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Representative Trent Franks(R) Arizona, 8th asserted that the United States Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London threatens property rights. Consequently, Congress must remedy the effects of the Court’s decision by actively protecting small businesses, and homeowners. The Kelo decision ruled that the government’s decision to take property for the purpose of private economic development satisfies the “public use” requirement of the 5th Amendment. Nevertheless, the government did not provide just compensation to the property owners, thus, ignoring the 5th Amendment’s takings clause. Further, Franks cites Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s principal dissent with the majority’s

Supreme Court found that an economic development plan was indeed “public use” and therefore all of the City’s takings were constitutional. Justice Stevens issued the majority opinion of the Court, he began his writing by stating “the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners’ land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party… nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose” (Kelo v. New London, 2005, pg. 478). Justice O’Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and the Chief Justice all dissented. Justice O’Connor wrote the dissent starting with a segment of Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) which held that there should be no Act of the Legislature or law made where it would be acceptable to take property from A and give it to B is a breach of the first principles of the social compact and is against all reason. Justice O’Connor then stated “Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded - i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public- in the process” (Kelo v New London, 2005, pg

This pathfinder is intended to give a layperson an objective overview of the current status of drone law. To do this I will start my explaining drones and their capabilities. Next I will discuss Fourth Amendment common law with a specific focus on the use of technology and aerial vehicles to conduct searches. Finally, I will discuss the current state of drone laws and regulations.

Anyone watching television news broadcasts in 2015 could conclude that radio controlled miniature aircrafts called drones are increasingly becoming a danger to the public. Miniature aircraft Drones are becoming safety hazards due to flights taking place over citizen’s property (Schneir 1). Today hostile countries can attack in multiple ways by using drones. This can be due to fact the technology is advanced to the point that terrorists can use it to attack anyone. Some drones can use the technology to cause terrorist disasters while taking control over the locations such as sports stadiums or public gatherings (Schneir 2). Having plenty of money gives power to terrorist groups to have this modern technology on the tip of their fingers. Terrorist abuse of the powers of drones makes it scary for citizens to use them. Therefore there should be much stricter laws regulating civilian use of these drones. Unmanned drones should be regulated because they can be used in terrorist attacks, they can intrude on personal privacy, and they can endanger public and private aircrafts.

In today’s society we are seemingly under increasing surveillance. We have cameras where we shop, on traffic lights, in parking lots, at the ATM machine, and even on our phones we carry in our pockets. Most of this surveillance we accept from the private sector based on security reasons, and we choose to carry a phone, but what about the usage of surveillance technology for law enforcement? Should the government be allowed to watch us in the privacy of our homes or monitor our every movement? This idea that Big-Brother could be watching us everywhere used to be a tale of science fiction; however, with the quickly developing technology of unmanned aircrafts (drones), this is not out of the realm of possibility. As technology changes, public policy must change accordingly, and questions about usage of these unmanned aircraft by the government must be considered. Do members of law enforcement have the right to use unmanned aircraft to gather information about citizens or is such actions a violation of our Constitutional rights? This analysis evaluates policy regulating drone usage and more specifically focuses on the Commonwealth of Virginia and the legislative actions the state has enacted regarding the usage of unmanned aircrafts for law enforcement purposes.

A better understanding of these regulations is important because the current regulations are flawed and unclear. In the book Integration of Drones into Domestic Airspace: Selected Legal Issues, Legislative Attorneys Alissa M. Dolan, and Richard M. Thompson give the current official legislative statement of the definition of a “privacy tort,” which can also be known as unlawful acts causing civil legitimate liability of privacy (Dolan; Merriam-Webster). These definitions apply to drones because when a drone takes a picture it “intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another” (Dolan 14). In other words, if someone is deliberately taking a photo of an individual without consent, he or she is held accountable

Until the regulations are created, using drones for commercial use is illegal. Waite furthers his argument that a finger could be cut off by a blade of a drone, and as seen in a recent incident, a drone could hit a firework and burning plastic could fall on spectators. In contrast, Waite also sees the advantage of drones in areas such as finding information about fires, other natural disasters, and even help examine endangered animals. Finally, Matt Waite concludes that with the accessibility that drones have they can sometimes be considered intrusive. In a different article entitled “Drones and GIS: A Look at the Legal and Ethical Issues,” written by Caitlin Dempsey, she emphasizes that lately, drones have been being used to gain geographic information and are considered an “essential data gathering too.” They have already been used to discover information in remote areas. The author notes that drones have to follow regulations, privacy, safety, and noise protocols while researching. In addition, Dempsey focuses on how the FAA restricts drones access any nearer than five miles of airports, over military bases, and over 400 feet in the air.

Picture someone sitting inside their house by an opened window, enjoying their personal activities like reading a book or watching television; when all of a sudden, they hear the soft quiet buzzing noise outside the window. They look up to see what looks like a flying remote control toy weighing about fifty-five pounds or less, with four miniature flying helicopter propellers, along with a camera staring right back at them. Then the trail of concerns and questions begin: Who is watching? Is someone taking photographic footage? Why are they watching? Aren’t they trespassing? Can this flying technology cause physical harm? In today’s society, these remote controlled small scaled flying pieces of technology are called domestic drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) (“Using Drones”). These domestic drones range in size and have the ability to fly in all directions with a wide signal range. They also have the capabilities of flying almost anywhere that is open to airspace, and can maintain a stable level flying position due to their evenly distributed symmetrical structure (McGlynn). This means that drones can hover in one place and capture high definition images. Domestic drones have the “ability to house high-powered cameras, infrared sensors, facial recognition technology, and license plate readers,” as well as the ability to make customized attachments like weapons, or storage compartments (Dolan; Goodman). The accessibility in obtaining a domestic drone is as

Moving beyond crowd surveillance, drones are raising a lot of questions in reference to the Fourth Amendment that protects citizens and their houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures (U.S. Const. amend IV). As drones have the potential to become important tools in police investigations, there are many situations presented that fall outside of the Fourth Amendment’s regulation but fit in well enough to raise it as an issue (Koerner 2015).

First, drones can fly into private property without permission. This is obviously against the law and the owner of the property has the right to shoot